To keep it short and sweet, what was the best German tank of WW2?

>breaks down and gets blown up by the crew

so pretty much just the VK 30.02

>her ex
No thots allowed

Attached: 01.jpg (954x800, 105K)

>stug III
>neither of the gen3 panzers

what did he mean by this ?

have sex

When I say gen3 I meant the tiger and the panther. My bad for not being clear

Panzer IV by sheer number built.

Why do people here put so much emphasis on number built when asked what is best?

Well there are two ways to look at it:
>Tanks, being machines, are partially reliant on the quality with and quantity in which they are manufactured. This is especially true when talking about the massive land war of the European Theater; tanks were incredibly important to the structure of nearly every army involved, and thus needed to be available to realize most objectives. While quantity cannot always outpace quality, and on a tactical level quality may better quantity, there is a certain critical mass of production at which the number of tanks lost cannot possibly outpace the number of tanks produced. This is often the core of the argument regarding the success of the T-34; being that the Soviets could have removed the guns from half of them and driven around as range targets for the Germans, and they would have still been out-producing their losses. Similarly, there is a balance to be met between production numbers and production quality. While one can never eclipse the other, the scales can be swayed in favor of the raw materials and manpower available to a nation's factories. The Soviets had a lot more raw material and a lot more people than the Germans, so there's little surprise when you look at total production numbers and the outcome of the war.
or:
>The question of "which X is the best?" is classic bait to draw in contentious, chauvinistic assholes who lack the ability to process any thought more complex than "hurr big number good!"

In short; Production numbers are important, but they're really just a small part of assessing a tank's effectiveness, especially if you're looking at them on an individual basis (as you would if comparing a group of tanks from the same nation)

Attached: 1439259252790.png (699x432, 210K)

raw numbers are important, as important as quality, but the best tank has the best performance for its cost

the stug III and panzer IV probably had the best cost to effectiveness ratio, as they could be effectively mass produced without compromising capabilities

>seething box nigger is seething

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

Fair enough I just tend to think best based on the tanks merits not industrial capacity.

>Only four hundred built.
>Totally irrelevant aside from propaganda value and hurring into the Ardennes.
The only one seething here is you.

Attached: maxresdefault (25).jpg (1280x720, 137K)

>trips then dubs
fokking noice OP

anyway, in answer to your question: TANKLETS BEE TEE EFF OH

STUGGANG
T
U
G
G
A
N
G

Attached: StuG_IV.jpg (943x480, 88K)

Based knowledge poster

>Totally irrelevant aside from propaganda value and hurring into the Ardennes.
I'm not the other user, but the fact that you cite the Battle of the Bulge as the only relevant combat the Tiger II saw in World War 2 is the reason these faggots think Americans are stupid. You're making us all look bad, and your stupid fucking WoT memes aren't helping.

Attached: 1550218954195.jpg (573x584, 62K)

I mean there's no fault in that, as long as you look at everything together. You could argue that industrial capacity is irrelevant here, since all the tanks in question were produced by the same industry. Plus you also get into the argument of "what was the best German tank" vs "what was the best tank for Germany?" The Germans could have produced an exact copy of the M1 Abrams in 1942 and, despite being superior to a Panzer III or Tiger or really anything else, it wouldn't have done them much good without the spare parts and fuel to run the thing.

/thread

Disagree, because by the end of the war, a Panther cost only slightly more than a Panzer IV; while being an obviously superior platform. I'd say the Panther was the best overall, and the long barreled Panzer III was best of it's own years.

>a Panther cost only slightly more than a Panzer IV
mostly because of corner cutting to speed up production, like sacrificing spare parts production by nearly 40%

From a strategic perspective, having the most number of 'adequate' tanks that your logistics train can support is one of the most important factors, if not the most important factor.
Having the most tactically effective tank in the war isn't useful if the enemy has broken through your lines and you don't have enough super-tanks close enough to the breach to counter attack in time or your tanks are trying to defend 5 v 1 and getting overrun by tanks that can be replaced for 1/10th of the man power and materials cost.

Germany made wunderwaffen tanks because towards the end of the war they didn't have the resources or production power to match the soviet tank numbers or provide fuel and spare parts for the tanks that they did have, let alone thousands more. Unfortunately they were wrong and stuff like the panther, tiger, king tiger etc. turned out to be strategic failures that drained massive amounts of resources they couldn't afford to spend and hastened their defeat.

Attached: 1.jpg74d9dc08-4b40-4d0e-b6ed-3f62fc20d3dfOriginal.jpg (1066x800, 85K)

>The Soviets had a lot more raw material
They had far less iron and coal then the Germans, they just used it better.

Would've been better off with the transmission and drive wheel at the back end so that there wasn't a shaft running under the turret and adding half a foot to the overall height...

Coal yes, but massive quantities of Germany's iron was imported from Sweden, and what was mined domestically was generally of poor quality. Fair enough, splitting hairs in this sense doesn't really change the argument either way, since none of this exists in a vacuum.

wala the machine that could've saved Germany.

Attached: Vk3002.jpg (1200x675, 52K)

>wala
"Voila" you uncultured swine.

Attached: 1494818652450.png (384x390, 175K)

Should've built this

Attached: GER_Panzer_IV_K.jpg (800x600, 155K)

Wrong.

The Panzer III did not have a big enough turret ring for the new 75mm turret. That would eventually make the Panzer IV, otherwise it was a cheapened chassis with the same engine and interior by not going with the original plan to slope the front hull armor of the Panzer III. That is why most Panzer III's became StuG' s and Panzer VI's later became G standard.

Attached: 265175412.jpg (400x300, 27K)

finding oil field in Poland and having Me 262 in 1940 is the only thing that could have saved Germany

the winning move is not to play. The second the US got involved, they lost. The interesting part is if that never happened

The only thing that could have saved Germany was Churchill getting ousted following Dunkirk and the UK suing for peace.

I'll go for the PzIII, it didn't exceed at anything but neither sucked at anything while having a few revolutionary features. Kinda like the Sherman, hell the dates even match up, as the PzIII became outdated it passed the torch of best tank to the Sherman arrounf early 1943.

Honestly I think if von Bock hadn't stalled out in the Moscow suburbs and Taifun succeeded, the eastern front would have been quick business and the whole rotten structure would indeed have coming crashing down.

Stalin was just as stubborn as Hitler and also refused to evac his capitol. Given how Stalin's personality cult was p. much the glue holding the SU together I feel like without him the situation for the Reds would have become untenable, unless Zhukov pulled a Cromwell perhaps and managed control of the state apparatus but methinks Beria and the rest of the NKVD apparatus would have had something to say about that.

To OP, you are objectively incorrect in saying the Germans didn't have a chance. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on more than one occasion and if they had succeeded in knocking out the SU and had the ability to commit such a vast quantity of men and materiel to the West, things would have gotten quite a bit more dicey for the Western allies. To be fair though, unless Germany managed to better contest the sky in some manner I still don't see victory for them.

Attached: Operation_Taifun_battle_at_Moscow_outskirts.jpg (652x687, 312K)

shit disregard that part I thought this was a different thread.

>gun + track means it's a tank
stop, just...stop. you don't know what you're talking about

Attached: 9c4533ba82ea9b7c279dbf016be132ff.jpg (2006x1256, 162K)

Obviously the PzKw 747 (r) - the best tank of the war.

>I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them.

>Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. While some of the quite common "Burn-Outs" are often blamed on faulty ammunition they were functioning as intended. Rosenstein himself allegedly payed factory workers to manipulate ammuniton to malfunction, misfire or simply detonate after the breech was closed.Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, of which he had started in a New York orphanage. To this day he remains the only jewish-american to ever hold the Iron Cross without ever serving. Goebbles himself sent a letter to Rosenstein, in which he complimented Sheldon for the destruction of over 1.000 american tanks and called him "the only jew to ever serve the german people"

>They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on more than one occasion
This is the fucking problem. If only poles and french resisted more than FUCKING MONTH EACH they could damage german army. Its logistics were crap, and all that miracles succeeded literally before collapsing. War in the East drained reserves, manpower, logistical capabilities and so on more than all wars im Europe combined.
Wehrmaht could neither take Moskow head on, nor encircle it for a long enough period. SU prepared for worst case scenario, and any effort to take city fast would end up in high casualty numbers at best, and encirclement of some german divisions at worst.

It was used like a tank
Tanks don’t need to have rotating turrets

Just what the fuck is this then? I will give you a clue, it starts with T.

Attached: uygh.jpg (946x464, 80K)

>Tanks are defined by their physical characteristics
>It has nothing to do with doctrine and usage

You may call a fish a bird but it shall not fly.

Attached: chieftain.png (490x599, 420K)

This meme again.

>falling for the tank meme
Gotta go fast son.

Attached: Sonderkraftfahrzeug_234_4_pakwagen.jpg (4272x2848, 2.87M)

It's a landship.

That post didn't mention any of those things.

A turd